• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deal Reached on Taxing 'Cadillac' Plans

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FOXNews.com - Deal Reached on Taxing 'Cadillac' Plans

The White House has reached a deal with health care negotiators, including labor unions, on taxing the high-level "Cadillac" plans that workers with high-risk jobs often purchase.

The excise tax on high-cost insurance plans has been one of the biggest sticking points in the negotiations, as President Obama has favored the Senate plan which calls for the tax, while House Democrats preferred raising taxes on high-income earners.

A senior Democratic official speaking on background told Fox News that the threshold for exemption would be raised from $23,000 to $24,000 per family but would remain the same at $8,500 for singles with high-value plans. Dental and vision plans would be removed from that calculation, however.

State and local workers and union members are exempted until 2017.

****ing fantastic. What is good for the goose is not good for the union member.
 
The goonion members are probably stupid enough to think they've accomplished something and will withdraw their opposition to the fascification (that's a word!) of America.
 
FOXNews.com - Deal Reached on Taxing 'Cadillac' Plans



****ing fantastic. What is good for the goose is not good for the union member.

Was listening to some radio show host last night saying 2 neighbors may have the same health care plan, but the non-union person gets to pay 40% tax and maybe cannot afford that additional tax so then must look for a different plan or go to a government funded plan. This is quite disturbing but no unexpected at all... the Democrats get their bread buttered by the unions so, it was expected.

So now we have unions and Nebraska getting free healthcare. Wonder what a union member IN Nebraska gets?
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that such a clearly discrminatory law would violate the 14th Amendment.

But the Democrats love discrimination, we know.
 
how many plans do you know of that cost over 24k per year?

It's none of my business, and if someone wants to pay a lot for health insurance and can afford it is not a justification for punishing them via egregious taxes.

Not in the America I grew up in, where everyone is supposed to be equal before the law.

Why should someone who can afford a plan like that be punished?
 
how many plans do you know of that cost over 24k per year?

It must be a lot, because the government projected that the excise tax would raise $150 billion over 10 years. If you remember correctly, that would be about 17% of the total cost of the health care bill.

You can't have it both ways. If the tax is going to raise a lot of money, then it's going to affect a lot of people. If it's not going to affect a lot of people, then how is it going to raise all this money and why is it so controversial?

and this:

And has that happened? Given the union's apparent willingness to throw everyone else under the bus, I'm not holding my breath. Furthermore, it gets at the same thing I mentioned above. As you exempt more and more people from having to pay for the program, you gut its revenues.
 
It's none of my business, and if someone wants to pay a lot for health insurance and can afford it is not a justification for punishing them via egregious taxes.

Not in the America I grew up in, where everyone is supposed to be equal before the law.

Why should someone who can afford a plan like that be punished?
um.....this is not the plan. the plan is to tax the insurance benefit provided by an employer if the value is over 24k for a family. YOU won't be taxed for what YOU buy.

or do i have it wrong?
 
It must be a lot, because the government projected that the excise tax would raise $150 billion over 10 years. If you remember correctly, that would be about 17% of the total cost of the health care bill.

You can't have it both ways. If the tax is going to raise a lot of money, then it's going to affect a lot of people. If it's not going to affect a lot of people, then how is it going to raise all this money and why is it so controversial?



And has that happened? Given the union's apparent willingness to throw everyone else under the bus, I'm not holding my breath. Furthermore, it gets at the same thing I mentioned above. As you exempt more and more people from having to pay for the program, you gut its revenues.
well, i don't really know anyone that has insurance worth over 24k for a family, that's provided by their employer. of course, i don't know any ceo types.

as for the 200k limit, i think that will happen.
 
Seems to me that such a clearly discrminatory law would violate the 14th Amendment.

But the Democrats love discrimination, we know.

As long as it's in the name of a greater good... namely... good for unions, good therefore for Democrats...
 
well, i don't really know anyone that has insurance worth over 24k for a family, that's provided by their employer. of course, i don't know any ceo types.

You think they're raising $150b from "CEO types?"

Why don't you try listening to your own unions?

The Senate Finance Committee’s 40 percent excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans would hit 37 percent of family health insurance plans and 41 percent of single plans by 2019, according to an analysis of the committee’s original health care reform bill conducted by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

By 2015, according to this analysis, the excise tax would slam 24 million households, growing to 39 million households by 2019. Nearly one-third of middle-class households making between $50,000 and $100,000 would be affected by 2019.

AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Proposed Health Care ‘Excise Tax’ a Tax on the Middle Class

I think its more likely that you just don't know how much other people's insurance actually costs (not what they're paying).
 
Was listening to some radio show host last night saying 2 neighbors may have the same health care plan, but the non-union person gets to pay 40% tax and maybe cannot afford that additional tax so then must look for a different plan or go to a government funded plan. This is quite disturbing but no unexpected at all... the Democrats get their bread buttered by the unions so, it was expected.

So now we have unions and Nebraska getting free healthcare. Wonder what a union member IN Nebraska gets?
highly doubtful.

For the Record: Just what is the average cost of health care insurance? - General News
 
You think they're raising $150b from "CEO types?"

Why don't you try listening to your own unions?



AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Proposed Health Care ‘Excise Tax’ a Tax on the Middle Class

I think its more likely that you just don't know how much other people's insurance actually costs (not what they're paying).
which is why the 200k limit.

and yes, i do know what insurance costs.

For the Record: Just what is the average cost of health care insurance? - General News
 
which is why the 200k limit.

Which brings us back to the point I made 10 posts ago. If you exclude all of those people from paying, then this tax won't raise the $150b it is supposed to raise for health care.


No, you know the average cost of insurance. That is not the same as knowing how many people this will affect. As was shown above, the proposed tax would have hit 40% of insurance plans by 2019. That's not all "CEO types."
 
Sorry I missed it.... what's highly doubtful? A 40% tax on non-union members healthcare?

Hullo - Liblady? Can you do a follow up because I didn't understand how the link you provided was germane to my comment about a 40% tax on the Caddilac Health Care plans of the Unions (or lack thereof as it stands now).
 
um.....this is not the plan. the plan is to tax the insurance benefit provided by an employer if the value is over 24k for a family. YOU won't be taxed for what YOU buy.

or do i have it wrong?

If the employer is taxed it will be passed on to the employees...... so yes,YOU will end up paying.
 
The main idea of the excise tax is to prevent over spending by employers offering health insurance to their employees. Especially since employers will be recieving tax breaks and subsidies for offering health insurance.

It is also meant to slow the growth of premiums since people will be more likely to buy the plan without the 40% tax on it. This will actually help lower the effect of rising health care costs on wages.

The fact that some people ought to be exempt for longer actually makes sense to me. For example, a firefighter may actually need a cadillac plan, and not be over spending. Labor Unions and government employees also have large amounts of benefits, meaning they will be more directly affected than people who do not. Thats why these people should have more time, so they can have time to renegotiate with their employers, which is the whole point of the excise tax to begin with.

Personally I think they should change the limit though, or at least how they find the limit. Just as RightinNYC showed, the limit would be hitting 40% of people by 2019. Instead I think they should base it on region, insead of this one size fits all limit. Surely health care costs will rise faster in some areas than others.

The projected $150 billion could only really affect 15 million plans ($10000 a plan, conservitivly 40% of 24000), so yes they could negotiate negotiate the limits and still bring in enough revenue.
 
The fact that some people ought to be exempt for longer actually makes sense to me. For example, a firefighter may actually need a cadillac plan, and not be over spending. Labor Unions and government employees also have large amounts of benefits, meaning they will be more directly affected than people who do not. Thats why these people should have more time, so they can have time to renegotiate with their employers, which is the whole point of the excise tax to begin with.

Why would a firefighter have any greater need for a highly expensive health care plan than a private sector employee doing a similarly dangerous job? While there are some union employees who are at risk like firefighters, the vast majority are not in fields that require overly expensive health care plans.

Furthermore, even if we accept that collective bargaining will slow down the process by which employers adjust health care plans for their workers, there is absolutely no reason to hold off on taxing unions for a decade, other than to give them a handout.


The projected $150 billion could only really affect 15 million plans ($10000 a plan, conservitivly 40% of 24000), so yes they could negotiate negotiate the limits and still bring in enough revenue.

The excise tax only hits the portion of the plan above the limit, so a plan that costs $24,000 would result in no tax, while a plan that costs $25,000 would result in a $400 tax. In order to raise $150 billion (which is a pipe dream), it would have to hit a lot more than 15 million plans.
 
Why would a firefighter have any greater need for a highly expensive health care plan than a private sector employee doing a similarly dangerous job? While there are some union employees who are at risk like firefighters, the vast majority are not in fields that require overly expensive health care plans.

They may not require them, but they still have them. So they do need time to renegotiate. It definetly does suck if you happen to need these plans and you are not a part of a labor union/government. I guess its the only way the government could get anything accomplished without pissing everyone off.

Furthermore, even if we accept that collective bargaining will slow down the process by which employers adjust health care plans for their workers, there is absolutely no reason to hold off on taxing unions for a decade, other than to give them a handout.

I'll agree, what they have seemed to have accepted is too much. Hopefully they will settle for something more legitimate before the end of the process.

The excise tax only hits the portion of the plan above the limit, so a plan that costs $24,000 would result in no tax, while a plan that costs $25,000 would result in a $400 tax. In order to raise $150 billion (which is a pipe dream), it would have to hit a lot more than 15 million plans.

Got it, ya unless most cadillac plans cost way more than 24000 than your probobly right.
 
Back
Top Bottom